contactflying wrote:MTV,

If the NTSB would just release the data they have, along with the video data now often available, could we not learn probable cause and chains link failure and do something on our own to reduce fatalities? This stuff should not be classified. It's not a criminal investigation. Working together rather than getting his number, we might duplicate the "lessons learned in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan" concept the Army uses. As leaders in combat, we were expected to do what Dan calls Advanced Qualification Training. That is to make changes to training and technique if things are not going well. In wars where we have no intention of winning, it is useful to figure out how to stay alive.

contact

Jim,

You've totally ignored the liability aspects of the NTSB's reports. A very high percentage of aircraft accidents result in litigation. Most involve insurance claims. Thus, the NTSB cannot legally release it's data until the Board has agreed to accept the report.

Secondly, anyone who actually watches Dan Gryder's videos is going to be disappointed or very badly misled. This is the guy who argued, on camera, and put it out for everyone to see, that all we have to do to prevent loss of control accidents is just add five or ten knots to all the speeds we fly airplanes at......seriously. Do a little research on the man and all of his "colorful" history.

MTV

As always Mike, you are probably right. I too have a colorful history. That is probably why I like him. I like you too. Like my wife, you have the gift of discernment. Internet is changing the world for better and worse. We need to take the good with the bad. Looking at ourselves critically is good, I think. While not official, there are pictures and observers and guys like Dan an me who are not afraid to stick our necks out. No be instead of do history to preserve anyway. Some of it might cause some to think about how and why they do what they do.

With litigation, the lawyers are always going to win. Concerning safety, and not litigation, most probable cause and what we should do differently is logical. Figuring out what went wrong usually doesn't require the all the electronic tracking device data the NTSB refuses to release. There continues to be more video and even more on site observation because people are living closer together. It doesn't take an ATP to report that the airplane was or was not spinning, etc. The parking brake thing that continued to kill Citation pilots and passengers long after the NTSB knew what the problem was but wouldn't say is the sort of thing that morality should dictate that leadership step up and take the consequences, but our friend always hanging on the prop when not necessary should be something we talk to him about. And when he falls, we need to say to our remaining friends, don't do that. Yes, feelings are going to be hurt. Hurt feelings, not bodies.

Finally, it is hard to legislate away the right to be stupid and hurt ourselves and others. Leaders are those who are able to influence others. The amount of metal on their hat or stripes on their shoulder has little to do with that. If they care for others more that for themselves, useful change can happen.

That video is gut wrenching. No matter what the root cause it stands as a reminder to us all to be careful. Never forget to check controls free and correct and watch that airspeed.

I realize that this is a tangent because that was a very experienced pilot in the video, but I share the concern about “STOL” culture and some of the risky flying flaunted on places like YouTube. I worry about how that may motivate pilots who don’t have the skills to perform challenging maneuvers to do so at great risk to themselves and others.

CParker wrote:That video is gut wrenching. No matter what the root cause it stands as a reminder to us all to be careful. Never forget to check controls free and correct and watch that airspeed.

I realize that this is a tangent because that was a very experienced pilot in the video, but I share the concern about “STOL” culture and some of the risky flying flaunted on places like YouTube. I worry about how that may motivate pilots who don’t have the skills to perform challenging maneuvers to do so at great risk to themselves and others.

Very well said CParker!

Kurt

Man I see these guys breaking ground and hauling on it for all it’s worth. We have an air taxi guy here that does it every time, loaded or empty with a clear departure route and thousands of feet of pavement out front. All it takes is one hiccup. That “halo effect” someone mentioned earlier is spot-on.

One of the points I’ve made/had to make many, many times during backcountry flight training is this: “You don’t have to clear the trees/terrain/obstacles by 200 feet. You just have to avoid hitting them.”

MTV

What MTV said. In training pull up out of the crop field, after a swath run in low ground effect, I have never had to grab the stick because the student was going to hit the trees. Want to get up right away seems to be hard wired into pilots. Where, fellow instructors, does that come from?

The farther away from the ground you are, the less likely it is to rise up and smite you.
Plus, doesn't everyone enjoy the adrenaline rush of a steep climb?

hotrod180 wrote:The farther away from the ground you are, the less likely it is to rise up and smite you.
Plus, doesn't everyone enjoy the adrenaline rush of a steep climb?

Yup, right up till it turns into an engine failure, followed immediately by an unrecoverable stall/spin. Good news is, those tend to take that behaviour out of the gene pool.

MTV

hotrod180 wrote:The farther away from the ground you are, the less likely it is to rise up and smite you.
Plus, doesn't everyone enjoy the adrenaline rush of a steep climb?

I don't think anyone is challenging altitude, but rather the method of getting there
And if you think a steep climb is exhilarating, you should try it with energy some time vs hanging it on the prop. One of my favorite moments at a gliderport is when a high performance glider rips across the strip at 3' agl and Mach 1, and then points it up and scoots right back up in to what looks like the atmosphere with no engine at all.
Most of those guys would easily transition to spraying.

Take care, Rob

I am blessed with a wife that enjoys flying with me.
On the rare occasion that I simply have to depend on the airplanes 'tractor factor' and no, not pointing it straight up, but just really counting on the engine to keep making music, my wife usually can be heard remarking "God bless Steve Knopp"
She gets it

Low altitude is one reason crop dusters who fall into the trap of pulling more gs with the elevator survive. They are no where near 1,000' AGL, maybe 200' at the most. They do not fall as far, and therefor as hard, as the people airplane pilots who engine climb almost high enough to recover from the stall before situations/conditions take away the little above stall airspeed. Pitch up early and go for that altitude quickly. Your insurance man will appreciate it. Fatalities are less expensive than serious injuries to cover.

When IFR, maintain airspeed not VSI. When VFR, do not pull back on the elevator without obvious zoom reserve airspeed (don't look, just think or develop muscle memory not to pull without zoom reserve airspeed.) Zoom reserve airspeed sounds much different and the elevator is much stiffer than when we are near stall airspeed. Zoom reserve airspeed feels really good and safe. The idea of maneuvering aggressively is not scary. When higher than 1,000' AGL, do whatever you wish. I have little experience there except IFR.

Finally, when fully loaded or at high DA (similar elevator softness and similar relative wind sound), avoid situations where you have to go up quickly without ground effect acceleration or thermal or orographic lift. Down drainage egress is always a safe consideration.